The legal framework won't change, though. We've waited 20 years now so forget that. I'm not advocating a huge tram building programme, just build the ones that are on the current wish list. Cycling/e-bikes and shared taxis (especially once autonomous vehicles become available) are the next best options available. Buses will become uneconomic if cycling and shared taxis become the main non-private car options.

Click to expand...

It may never change but we have to hope it does, as delivery of a sensible integrated transport network is virtually impossible otherwise. The opinion in US transport circles, where it's actually happening now, is that shared taxis damage public transport and create more congestion despite promising the opposite.

It may never change but we have to hope it does, as delivery of a sensible integrated transport network is virtually impossible otherwise. The opinion in US transport circles, where it's actually happening now, is that shared taxis damage public transport and create more congestion despite promising the opposite.

Click to expand...

Shared taxis (matatus, song thaews or whatever you call them) are a lesson Asian and African countries already learnt - Malaysia banned them some time ago. Even with an app they are basically the same thing. They might work in low-density cities like MK, but when you see the disruption the present non-shared taxis cause by blocking the road to collect/disgorge one passenger, can you imagine what kind of a mess London would be if you got rid of the buses and had shared Ubers instead?

DRT already covers much of GM and has replaced tendered buses in many areas. But is still not particularly efficient or cheap because of the need to book through a traditional call centre. With modern and future technology and with mass usage, near on demand shared taxis at low cost could be available without causing much unnecessary mileage if efficient routes can be calculated by computer in real time. We would still have trams and heavy rail on major corridors and shared taxis could be encouraged to connect into them rather than compete with them. Infrequent local bus services in suburban towns are pointless and should probably be replaced by shared taxis today, especially in the evening.

DRT does work for areas of low demand for non-car users or specialist needs like community transport, but it's not areas of low demand where Uber etc are focused - they are interested in mass demand competing with other modes which really doesn't work.

That means efficiency in transit is the ratio of passengers to drivers. Microtransit, by definition, is a low-capacity service, carrying small numbers of people at a time. This is, by definition, a way to serve very few people at very high cost, compared to fixed routes.

And as soon as we talk about transit agencies funding microtransit, we are saying that they should do this instead of adding fixed route services that are proven to attract vastly more riders and serve them vastly more efficiently.
...
Because of its low productivity, transit agency funding of arises from a coverage goal, which is the opposite of a ridership goal. Coverage means “predictably low ridership service run for a non-ridership reason,” typically access to places where the built environment makes high-ridership service impossible. The microtransit boosters assume that agencies must run lots of coverage service but this is actually an issue that should be debated; many agencies I’ve worked with have shifted their priorities the other way.
...
If a transit agency invests in a microtransit service hour for 3 people instead of a fixed route service hour for 30 people, solely to give those 3 people a better “customer experience,” we must ask “why are these 3 people so special?” Why shouldn’t they pay the full cost of their superior customer experience, rather than expecting the taxpayer to subsidize it?
...
The microtransit movement, like so many fads that have blown over transit agencies during my 25-year career, appears to be an example of elite projection, the tendency of fortunate people to assume that whatever they personally like will be good for society as a whole. An urban elite has seen their lives transformed by ride-hailing services, and understandably wants to believe that this transformation can be brought to transit too. This helps to explain why so much talk of microtransit is so dreamy, so obviously stated in the tone of a sales pitch rather than an analysis. To think clearly in this context, you need to lean into the wind, being skeptical but not cynical about ideas that obviously serve someone’s commercial interest.
...
But the neglect of fixed routes, encouraged at the highest levels, is the real source of transit’s declining relevance. My firm works in cities all over the US, and most of them have appallingly low levels of fixed route service compared to potential demand. In most American cities, the quantity of service is growing far slower than population, which means that on average, the availability and usefulness of transit is getting worse. Most cities, in short, are forcing low-income people to buy cars by making that the only way to have a life, even in places where fixed route service could succeed.

In this reality, should transit agencies really focus on ways to move tiny numbers of people more expensively, to deliver them a special “customer experience”, as the microtransit idea proposes? Clearly that’s not the path to ridership.

Meanwhile, cities that are forcefully recommitting to fixed routes are bucking the trend of falling ridership, and these show a clear path. Ridership is up in Seattle, despite all the countervailing trends, because of an unusually high commitment to quality service and to protecting fixed routes from congestion — a commitment shared by the transit agency and the City of Seattle. Houston continues to do far better than its Texas peers, partly due to the 2015 network redesign that expanded the bus network’s usefulness.

That last part is important because the main element of Uber’s grand narrative – their continued ability to offer low fares – is not as guaranteed a prospect as Londoners (and indeed all users) have been led to believe.

For now, it is simply worth bearing something in mind: Uber’s fares do not cover the actual cost of a journey.

Just how large the deficit is varies by territory and – as the firm don’t disclose more financial information than necessary – it is difficult to know what the shortfall per trip is in London itself. In New York, however, where some 2016 numbers are available, it seems that every journey only covers 41% of the costs involved in making it.

Just why Uber do this is something we will explore another time, but for now it is important just to know it is happening. It means that, without significant changes to Uber’s operational model, the company will never make a profit (indeed it currently loses roughly $2bn a year).

Infrequent local bus services in suburban towns are pointless and should probably be replaced by shared taxis today, especially in the evening.

Click to expand...

What percentage of local bus services that are infrequent is the average in comparison to the total number of operated bus services that are deemed to be regular bus services in those suburban towns you refer to?

What percentage of local bus services that are infrequent is the average in comparison to the total number of operated bus services that are deemed to be regular bus services in those suburban towns you refer to?

Have you any thoughts on rural area infrequent bus service provision?

Click to expand...

Urban services running hourly or worse, especially in the evening are very unattractive due to their low frequency and consequently carry very few passengers.

Obviously rural buses services hardly exist and almost never run in the evening or Sunday. Bus modal split may well be 1% or lower in rural areas. DRT and in the future autonomous transport is the clear solution here.

Just because there are a lot of buses doesn't mean that usage is high. Britain probably has more buses than any other European country, maybe even if you exclude London, but we are all aware that bus usage is low, hence calls for franchising.

Click to expand...

What makes bus usage feel low, even when we see plenty of buses such as in parts of Manchester, is the awareness that half of bus journeys in England are in London.

But what other option is there if you discount buses? Although I note you didn't comment on cycling, so maybe you see potential there?

Click to expand...

I'm absolutely not discounting buses - I'm saying they are a vital part of the network. Cycling has its place and should be encouraged, but it's never going to be for everyone so it doesn't substitute for a comprehensive public transport network.

I'm absolutely not discounting buses - I'm saying they are a vital part of the network. Cycling has its place and should be encouraged, but it's never going to be for everyone so it doesn't substitute for a comprehensive public transport network.

Click to expand...

In some towns in mainland Europe, cycling achieves modal shares that public transport can only hope to get in only the very biggest cities. For connection into tram lines in south Manchester where it is flat and distances to the tram stop are often short, cycling should be ideal. It can be done without regulatory change, so there is no need for wishful thinking that bus franchising will happen.

In some towns in mainland Europe, cycling achieves modal shares that public transport can only hope to get in only the very biggest cities. For connection into tram lines in south Manchester where it is flat and distances to the tram stop are often short, cycling should be ideal. It can be done without regulatory change, so there is no need for wishful thinking that bus franchising will happen.

Click to expand...

For cycling to be widespread in areas such as south Manchester there would have to be an enormous spend on a comprehensive network of protected cycle tracks, which would take up significant roadspace so while it might not require regulatory change it would require political willpower. However there are many people who wouldn't use it, such as the infirm, those visiting without cycles and those with heavy luggage or small children. And what may be OK for south Manchester may not work so well in the hills to the north and east.

I'm not saying that cycling shouldn't be part of the strategy but it's not a reason to neglect buses.

In some towns in mainland Europe, cycling achieves modal shares that public transport can only hope to get in only the very biggest cities. For connection into tram lines in south Manchester where it is flat and distances to the tram stop are often short, cycling should be ideal. It can be done without regulatory change, so there is no need for wishful thinking that bus franchising will happen.

Click to expand...

Do those cities have Manchester’s weather though?

Cycling in the dry is attractive. Arriving at work muddy, soaked and needing a shower and change of clothing isn’t.

They also haven't abandoned bus services, as you appear to be suggesting.

Click to expand...

But, certainly in the case of the Netherlands, usage is low even by British standards, because most of the kinds of trips made by bus in other countries are made by bike. But it is still considered important to provide a comprehensive bus system, so that requires a lot of subsidy. If such a switch happened in the UK, it would make most if not all commercial services unviable, and there would be little appetite for subsidising replacements.

But, certainly in the case of the Netherlands, usage is low even by British standards, because most of the kinds of trips made by bus in other countries are made by bike. But it is still considered important to provide a comprehensive bus system, so that requires a lot of subsidy. If such a switch happened in the UK, it would make most if not all commercial services unviable, and there would be little appetite for subsidising replacements.

Click to expand...

There is a totally different cycling mindset in this country to the oft-quoted Netherlands scenario. Buses in all their various guises from those horse-drawn ones onwards have been long been imbued in the British travelling public's mindset.

There is a totally different cycling mindset in this country to the oft-quoted Netherlands scenario. Buses in all their various guises from those horse-drawn ones onwards have been long been imbued in the British travelling public's mindset.

Click to expand...

Funny how Britain is not prepared to pay for buses if it is indeed part of the culture

Funny how Britain is not prepared to pay for buses if it is indeed part of the culture

Click to expand...

Is that "Britain" the Treasury with the hands on the purse-strings and nothing to do with the transport operators? Culture does never feature in the mind-set of those in the Treasury, as well you know.

Is that "Britain" the Treasury with the hands on the purse-strings and nothing to do with the transport operators? Culture does never feature in the mind-set of those in the Treasury, as well you know.